Thinking about a change in direction....

[Bamamav]

I've been doing a little thinking, which in itself can be dangerous! My plans were to use a 302 AOD in my truck. A new idea that has popped up is, I have a 99 Ranger with a 4.0 V6 5 speed that has been rolled. I'm going to be pulling a lot of parts from it for my truck, namely the 8.8 rear, pedals, brake booster and master cylinder, etc. I got to thinking about using the 4.0 & 5 speed. I've got everything to make it work, wiring, tank and pump, lines, steering column {it has the PATS key, so you have to use the switch for the computer to work}. I'm thinking about cutting the floor out and grafting it into the 36. The frame I'm not sure about, don't know if it's too wide for the 36 cab or not.

What I'd like to know is will the distributer and intake off of a 2.8 or 3.0 fit the 4.0 and work if they come from the same engine family? Or would I be better off to get the wiring harness and computer off of a 98 without the PATS system and run the fuel injection? Or will the 98 wiring & computer even work on a 99 motor?
I'm willing to go carbed and Dura Spark distributer if that is easier to get to work.
I hate electrical work, but with a factory harness, it might not be so bad.

The 4.0 was a hoss in the Ranger, so I figure in the lighter 36 it would sure enough be a tire burner. And a 5 speed would be nice, too.

If I were to end up using the Ranger frame, I'd set the cab and engine back, so the grill shell would be centered on the front tires from a side view. It's one of the independent front ends with rack and pinion steering, so it would handle nice.

What do you guys think? Stay with the 302 and auto, or go with the 4.0 5 speed? It will be a cruiser, not a racer. No wrong answers here, just opinions!

 

[Willowbilly3]

I would keep it efi with the original ignition. There are tons of those arouns back to the early 90s so you could get the system without PATS. The 4.0 is a great engine, and good on fuel.

 

[Old Iron]

I put a tuned port in my 66 Chevy pickup and have not been disappointed at all with it.
I'd do the EFI

 

[CR55]

Rowing gears and great gas mileage....it doesn't get much better...

 

[rainman]

I agree with these guy's, sounds like a great driver!!
I also really like the 4.0!!!

 

[440shorty]

2.9 v6

Sounds like a good idea. A month ago I was changing head gaskets on a 2.9 V6, which is the same family. The lower intake manifold has three pairs of ports that look like three Strombergs should be bolted on there, or in this case, look-alike throttle bodies, instead of the upper intake manifold. Wouldn't THAT be cool in a hot rod?

440shorty

 

[jfg455]

I guess I am the odd sheep out in this thread. I think the 4.0L in the rangers was a terrible motor. I have replaced a ton of head gaskets in them. They alway seem to 'tick', leak oil, intake gaskets, valve cover gaskets and I was not impressed with the power or the mileage. A couple of friends had them and only got 16-17 mpg with them. I think you would get the same mileage with the 302 and have the power to boot if you wanted to. I like the 5 spd idea though. How about a 302 5spd for the rod? Just my $.02

 

[Bamamav]

I'm still up in the air and will be for a while on this. I've got to get the wifes Vette back together first before I can do anything.
I like the idea of the 302 and 5 speed, but they are hard to find around here. I have a complete 3 speed setup I could use though. But by the time I do all that, I'd be cheaper with the AOD that's under the work bench.
Still thinking about using the Ranger cab floor though.
Hope to have the Vette up and going in a few weeks, then get back on the truck...

 

[Shea Laking]

Probably just be easier to run the entire package intact, straight out of the Ranger.

Sorry, not sure about specifics on the Passive Anti Theft System, I was a "general grunt" and didn't get much into electrical back when I worked @ the dealership.

Is this a SOHC 4.0? I remember they had a recall with the timing chain tensioner cartridges, this was part of the "ticking" mentioned earlier.

I used to own an '89 with a 2.9 in it, the guy I bought it from had just replaced the head gaskets before I bought it. Spent a fair bit of dough on all Motorcraft tune-up stuff, adjusted timing, flushed injectors, etc, got it running mint..... And cracked a cylinder head a month or so later. If I could have afforded to replace the 2.9 with a 5.0, I would have really loved that little truck...

Regards,
Shea

 

[Bamamav]

No, this is the other 4.0. It's the same block as the earlier 2.8 that was used in the Mustang II's and Pinto's, just a larger bore. I want to say it's the Essex engine? German design anyway. Explorers and Rangers got this engine until the came out with the SOCH engines.

The "tick" that these engines are known for comes from the valvetrain. Non adjustable, and not enough oil gets to the rockers, wearing out the rockers and pushrods. And you can't change lifters without removing the heads! The heads overhang the block valley.

All that wiring is the only thing stopping me. If I could run an early distributer and carb intake, it would be simpler. This engine has the coil pack, no distributer. And did I say I hate wiring? Miles of it.

Still plenty of time to think about it. Too dam hot right now to do anything on it anyway!